Human Rights court case lost ...

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:04 am

In the ECJ, the case against the UK was lost today. The case was about having to name yourself as a driver of a car under threat of prosecution (section 172).

What a shame ...

Post by **sp3ctre** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:25 am

Sorry, can you explain a little more... not sure I'm with you?

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:28 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 84,00.html

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:30 am

Too depressed to write ... Will mean that even more laser guns and camera's will be installed as it is a free hunting field ...

Post by **sp3ctre** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:49 am

Yeah, I'm all for getting rid of speed cameras, bunch of money grabbing b@$t@rds, but it surely makes sense to have to divulge who was driving... what if it was a hit and run offence? (yeah, s'pose that's a bit different I admit)

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:54 am

Hit and run caught on camera? Unlikely I would say ...

Camera's are only there to collect cash, just like anywhere else. However, everywhere else they openly admit to it and they only fine the car owner (irrespective of who is the driver, the owner will have to retrieve the money from them).

Makes more sense though? Government will still get their money. Noone can really complain that their car has been flashed at a certain speed and pays up. No court cases, no points so everyone is a winner.

My friends in NL get about 2 - 3 tickets a month. Nothing to do with safety as the Dutch roads have a lower casualty rate then in the UK.

muppet · Post by **muppet** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:54 am

Yes when that driver runs down and kills a child the police will still be able to require the owner to say who the driver was ...... PVR you think that is bad news ?

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:58 am

As I said above - hit and run is not a camera case. That would only be prevented by proper policing of the roads.

Post by **sp3ctre** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:02 am

Yeah, I think we're at slightly cross purposes here... IMHO cameras are bad, but surely if someone does something illegal in a car, they should have to own up to who was driving... this is a separate issue to cameras. Say for example, a witness saw a hit and run... they caught the drivers after the event and they owned up, but said "we're not telling you who was driving"... this would mean that they would get away with it if they had the ability to stay silent?

...again... I still think speed cameras are rrrrrubbish!

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:06 am

That case has indeed nothing to do with that. It is when camera's flash a car that you are required to name the driver. That was the scope of the case.

Normal detective work in case of accidents etc are / were not affected by that court case and were never in scope.

Post by **sp3ctre** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:12 am

pvr wrote:That case has indeed nothing to do with that. It is when camera's flash a car that you are required to name the driver. That was the scope of the case.

Normal detective work in case of accidents etc are / were not affected by that court case and were never in scope.

ok, fair enough then... I thought the issue was "if asked who was driving the car at a given time, you must own up"? Guess I was wrong.

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:14 am

Yep

The camera's record offences, you were talking about criminal investigations.

Post by **sp3ctre** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:18 am

... anyway, I wish the Brits weren't such a nation of wet's!!! In Ontario, Canada they just voted for a party that abolished them... wish we could do the same! I don't believe for one second they save lives!

Color · Post by **Color** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:31 am

Maybe the problem with Britain is similar to Norway, they have too strong socialistic roots and come from ages of monarchy. People have kinda grown accustomed to things being that way and lack guts to stand up to do something about it. Any other party which has ideas contrary to the socialistic mainstream parties, are mockered and seen upon as inferior.

And the die-hard socialists won't let their power slip too much. Obviously they don't listen too much to the people, but run their own game and just hope people follow the old tradition of voting for them. I get the impression socialism is not about listening to the people, it's about the state deciding whats best for the people not the people themselves. The problem is that there are too many people out there who agree to that and vote these parties into goverment. I for one like to decide for myself what is best for me, maybe I should start my own party

Oh, and suspect this will start a heated debate, so . .

pvr · Post by **pvr** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:34 am

Sp3ctre - Have you ever heard of a government abolishing a certain tax? It is a money cow, so they are not getting rid of it.

Same as with smoking/ drinking. They want people to stop smoking and drinking.

If everyone would listen to the government, and would not speed nor smoke / drink, there would be a financial crisis in the government as a huge proportion of the income comes from those sources

Z4-forum.com

Z4-forum.com

Human Rights court case lost ...

Human Rights court case lost ...